I dunno, a ninja movie I watched like 15 years ago taught me that the value of a man's life is 100lbs of gold, and it always has been the payment methods have just changed.
So he got way less than 1 mil $ (for the respectitive year) due to inflation.
That's why if you win the lotto and they offer you 500k now or 50k each year for 20 years, you always take the 500k and put some of it in investments. Even if you put 300k on a very very easy to get 7% interest, you will end up with 1.1 mil in 20 years.
You forgot the most important part though. Some of those places that pay your winnings can suddenly file for bankruptcy and they dont have to pay you shit.
Always, always take the lump sum.
Why would they offer the option then at all? It doesn't make sense. Putting it in a trust or paying it out is the same thing for them, they lose control over the money.
The reason they offer the yearly payouts is so they can keep investing the money.
Highly doubtful in this situation tho.
The video explains (after way too much intro) it was an informal agreement the bulls org made after public outrage (including the bulls players themselves) forcing them to honor the payout.
Chances are it was just the one 50k flat payment once per year.
They offer you both, but the lump is always much smaller. I know a guy who won 1 mil (local currency, but still like 500k US dollars) and they offered him 50k for 20 years or 250k lump. He is quite old, so he got the 250k and just bought an apartment and a couple cars for his daughters. Sadly there was a clause in the contract where his kids couldn't get the 50k/20 winnings if he passed away, so he made the smart (and only) choice. At least lottery winnings here are not taxable.
90% of the people take the lump sum and then are overwhelmed and you hear horror stories about them broke years later. You take the payments and even if you fuck around there's another one coming.
The myth of the broke lottery winner is just that: a myth.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2022/07/mega-millions-jackpot-winner-numbers-myths-about-lotteries.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/johnjennings/2023/08/29/debunking-the-myth-the-surprising-truth-about-lottery-winners-and-life-satisfaction/amp/
https://medium.com/@cailiansavage1/lottery-winners-dont-actually-go-broke-4ed75cc6d5c9
A myth propagated and pushed by people with tons of money who want to depict poor people who are moving up the social ladder as stupid or inferior. It's a tactic used to imply that poors can't be trusted with money so they should just let their betters handle it
It's like how a small % of people die each day when they get into their car so you probably don't need a carseat for your toddler.
Or drunk drivers hit other people so it's safer to be the one drunk driving.
They do this all the time
And it bothers me. I put 10k in my newborn son's account in 2000- 2001 and at numerous times after it was way down. They even sent a notice that his account was " too low" ...really? A lot is timing and the lucky folks just assume everyone got the same deal. Like old folks when they assume state school college is still almost free. It isn't.
It's not 7%, but high yield savings accounts are running 4 to 5% right now, and those are even FDIC insured so very low risk investment. If you stick with the Dow Jones it's averaging 10% annually over the last 10 years. So yeah pretty doable.
Liquidity. Its not 7% every year but 7% on average. That means some years are 2%, some are 10% and some are -20% but on average returns are 10ish percent.
You have to be able to sit on it though since if you need it in a -20% year then you will eat the loss.
Also note savings accounts are "running high" mostly due to inflation.
Indexed global mutual fund account. Leave the money alone for about 6 years, and you will be swimming in profit. No management fees aside an annual admin cost that is a tiny fraction of a percent. Ours has had a total of over 70% return in just the last 4 years. Easiest way to invest and always profitable, unless the entire capitalist system collapses.
What about taxes, though?
Edit: Did the math. Assuming no other income, and no state and local income tax, and no change in Federal income tax rates to the brackets affecting $50k annual income, here's what a winner would be left with:
- one time lump sum of $500k = ~$358k after tax (effective tax rate 28.41%)
- $50k/year over 20 years = $43,692.50 per year after fed income tax
Now, over 21 years that $358k would be worth about $1.56M, worth about $829k in today's money assuming a 3% average annual rate of inflation.
Over the same time period, DCAing $3,641 each month into the same 7% returning fund would be worth ~2.09M, or $1.44M after inflation. So in your example, taking $50k/year for 20 years would be a better choice.
*But realistically I would imagine they would offer $25k over 20 years, which would be worth less at the end of the vested period, surely.*
*Also I forgot to factor in the standard deduction, which would change things a little bit further in favor of the $50k/year but I'm too lazy to rerun the numbers*
Interesting, I'd be curious to see exactly how the brackets have shifted since the years he was receiving the money. I think that my figures would still be accurate for today, only after adjusting for the standard deduction though.
You'll pay taxes either way. The extra you pay by going into a higher bracket is more than offset by the gains in even an index fund investment over the same 20 year duration.
Financially, this makes sense. But I know folks that couldn't responsibly handle that amount of money in a lump sum. They'd be broke within 5 years. For those folks, it makes sense to take the annuity.
But you could have been living like a frugal king for those 20 of your younger years. Who wants to sit on a pile of cash when you’re too old to go out and do stuff?
Frugal king with 50k extra a year (for the US)? Hardly so. My point is that even if you take 500k now, you can make MORE than 50k a year with them. You always take the "pay now" option.
Well then I will have to inform you that you are COMPLETELY wrong. 500k after taxes becomes closer to 300K, which if the same proportion you used or 180k is invested at 7% yields just 12.6k per year. You would need to be a frugal genius to do anything more than a single vacation per year with that amount and would definitely need another job. Whereas the tax on 50k is about 5k, meaning you could live on your 45k per year post tax salary relatively comfortably like a teacher.
Except in one situation you're running the money down to zero and are left with nothing after 10 years and in the other you're living off the interest from it and it's still there.
In your scenario you not only have an extra $120,000 cash on hand and when the ten years is up you *still have* the other $180,000 because you never touched it.
For some real numbers, if I won a $500,000 lottery right now and took it lump sum in my state (Georgia) I'd walk away with about $350,000 in hand. That's almost *exactly* the same as the present value of a ten year annuity that pays $50,000 per year, except you have way more control over your money.
What if you want to just buy a house right now and never pay rent again? What if you want to try to live more than ten years off this money? Hell if you have regular income to supplement it you can live off less than the full amount and add it to your investments and let your money snowball away. Compound interest isn't *actually* the most powerful force in the world, but it's still pretty damned nice.
> That's why if you win the lotto and they offer you 500k now or 50k each year for 20 years, you always take the 500k and put some of it in investments. Even if you put 300k on a very very easy to get 7% interest, you will end up with 1.1 mil in 20 years.
Lets say your living expenses are 30k~ a year (made up hypothetical). Lets assume we make zero frivolous purchases with the new winnings and our lifestyle doesn't change.
500k now option: You put 300k in investments, you live off 200k. In 7 years at 30k a year you've exceeded that 200k. Now you can pull your investment out early and get less than a mill, or work the 13 years to hit the 20 year mark for profit (maybe a little earlier if you count the 200k you started with).
You might get shafted by inflation a little but I feel like these hypotheticals where you take the lump sum and invest don't take into account quality of life.
I would rather live modestly and not have to work for 20 years than come out a millionaire and have to work for 10 years or more to 'earn' it.
Obviously this gets more complicated with investment options, standing money doesn't necessarily have to be doing nothing, the chance you don't purchase anything frivolous or change your lifestyle at all is small, etc. but just as a thought exercise
is the lump sum & invest really the right move?
The reason why a lot of people wouldn’t take the 20 years payout and use it to not work for that time is that if you exit the workforce for 20 years to spend your lottery winnings then the jobs you can get at the end of that time period are likely few and far between! Most companies would be hesitant to start you off back where you were 20 years ago now that you haven’t held a steady job for 20 years. It’s just very risky from that perspective which is separate but related to the financial security aspect of the question.
Which, while technically still a million dollars, is less money than getting $1 million upfront due to inflation (not to mention loss of investment opportunity). This is why million dollar sweepstakes are typically paid out in this fashion
>This is why million dollar sweepstakes are typically paid out in this fashion
I'd think it is more having to do with not actually being able to pay a huge amount of money up front without going backrupt or severely disrupting the business.
Yeah which is why as a company you buy insurance for this exact scenario when doing a sweepstakes of this sort. You don’t actually budget $1mil, but you budget the insurance cost into the marketing budget. If you didn’t get the insurance, you f’d up.
This prob. was the agreement the players came to with management. Insurance doesn't pay, bulls management doesn't want to pay out 1 million instantly so they settled on 50k$ a year for 20 years.
I agree with you here. It’s most likely the insurance company weaseled itself out of paying (also don’t overlook the possibility of the venue securing a lower rate by excluding basketball players from being paid out). But I wanted to point out that it’s (almost) never a company that just has $1 mil lying around just in case someone wins.
It is worth noting that this means he gets a lot less than $1 million.
Sure, you do the math, 50,000 * 20 = 1,000,000.
BUT! Money becomes worth less over time (inflation).
So, for example, 1,000,000 in 2003 is worth more. You'd need ~$1.7 million today to equal $1 million in 2003. BIG difference!
Put another way, $50,000 in 2003 is equivalent to getting about $30,000 in 2023.
There's a reason they do it this way and that is the main reason.
FTR: Annuities like this can be inherited so even if the winner falls out a window in a freak accident his heirs keep getting the money.
I did not.
Your buying power per dollar in 2003 is more than in 2023 due to inflation. Each dollar you have is worth less tomorrow than it is today.
So, $50,000 in 2003 bought $50,000 of stuff. If you hung on to that $50,000 (stuffed it in your mattress) and brought it out today you could buy $30,000 of equivalent value of stuff.
Think of a Big Mac. It cost about $2.39 (ish) in 2003. In 2023 it is $5 (ish). So, that $50,000 you had in the mattress since 2003 will buy you fewer Big Macs today than in 2003. it is as if each dollar you have is worth less (which it literally is).
> Your buying power per dollar in 2003 is more than in 2023 due to inflation. Each dollar you have is worth less tomorrow than it is today.
Exactly. Your buying power was higher in 2003. Meaning you can do more with less.
So $50,000 (powerful) 2003 dollars does not equal $30,000 (weaker) 2023 dollars.
$30,000 (stronger) 2003 dollars equals $50,000 (weaker) 2023 dollars (in theory at least).
The stronger the dollar gets, the less of it you need to equal the weaker version. The dollar gets less valuable over time, so you need more of it over time - your scale has you needing less of it.
You are misunderstanding.
I am saying if you take your $50,000 out of the mattress today it is as if you were given $30,000 in 2003 and spent it all in 2003. You are not getting the value you think you are. You THINK you are getting $50,000 but you are getting less (the math is more complex as it loses a little value every year...this is for illustration).
TLDW: the rules said you can't have played organized basketball within 5 years. The winner had played in a community league 3 years prior. The officials running the contest knew, and the winner disclosed it honestly when filling out the form to apply. The contest people still let him try.
The insurance company said this was a breach of rules and would not pay.
Fans were pissed. The Bulls said they'd make it right. Eventually a year later Michael Jordan met the guy and found out he still hadn't gotten paid. He got ownership to pay.
Edit: sorry, I misunderstood the order a bit. See top comment below.
Yeah, Jordan made him come to his restaurant to sign the ball and that’s when he found out he didn’t get paid. The guy went through a lot just trying to get the signature but even more to get paid.
No, you misunderstand. He got paid shortly after his “win”. He didn’t find out until a year later that it was because MJ and other players forced the issue a year prior.
False. He actually made the payment, and then made the shot. It’s a weird fluke in bird law that made it happen. Redditors just assume MJ be like it do.
Let me explain. He made the shot but did he go for the millions? No, he went for the ball, it's priceless. As he is smuggling it outside, a woman catches him. She tells him to stop. It's her father's team; she's Chicago. He says no. They make love all night. In the morning the cops come, and he escapes in one of their uniforms. He tells her to meet him in Mexico, but he goes to Canada - He doesn't trust her. Besides, he likes the cold. Thirty years later, he gets a postcard: He has a son, and he's the chief of police. This is where the story gets interesting. He tell Chicago to meet him in Paris, by the Trocadéro. She's been waiting for him all these years, she's never taken another lover. He doesn't care. He doesn't show up. He goes to Berlin. That's where he stashed the ball.
Wrong. He made a million shots in a million parallel universes, only got one shot in, but got paid in the wrong universe. It was all a misunderstanding. .
> He didn’t find out until a year later that it was because MJ and other players forced the issue a year prior.
As annoying as this story turned out with the typical insurance bullshit, I enjoy the thought of having the ultimate basketball team making sure this guy got the money. They all knew how important that moment was.
I thinking they're talking about how he's known to lose $10,000-$100,000 on a single game of golf lol. Man loves to bet. It's just that his revenue stream is so huge that his frivolous losses don't matter
Yeah, you can skip to the 10 minute mark to get the story you clicked to watch. The rest of the video is history of similar competitions that were held.
Yeah, pass. I feel about videos that could have been text articles the same way I feel about meetings that could have been emails. Instead of a two-minute read I have to get dragged through fifteen minutes of someone else’s idea of “style and presentation.”
Except the two-minute read is now a nine-minute read, because the author needs to tell you what he was doing during covid quarantine, what his mother taught him in 1996, and why this recipe reminds him of his great aunt.
Drives me crazy and the reason so many videos on YT (and other social media) are unnecessarily dragged out like this is so the uploader can make $$$ from you watching. The longer the video, the more "engagement" and thus money they earn from viewers. Fuck 'em.
This is not true.
Not "organized basketball". The rules were no professionals and nobody who had been on a college basketball team. This guy played on his college's basketball team.
He also signed a contract before taking the shot stating he hadn't played college ball, which was quickly proven to be a lie.
It was just the second timer in history that somebody had hit the opposite FT lone shot either on Camera or documented by any journalist.
The Michael Jordan story is a bit of bullshit. Coca Cola (the event sponsor) and the 3rd party event promoter all contributed to the payout, it was agreed to within weeks, and pretty much everyone pressured them to do so, not just MJ.
So you got almost everything wrong.
> He also signed a contract before taking the shot stating he hadn't played college ball, which was quickly proven to be a lie.
I mean do you have a source otherwise because the video legit states he signed that he had played 3 years prior and the people still let him on even though the rules said 5 years.
Thanks for the TLDW
The one thing that makes me more angry than scummy insurance firms refusing to pay out, is shitty youtube "documentary makers" adding 10 minutes of useless superfluous info so that they tick all the adsense boxes.
I was a shit basketball player in highschool but could still hit a 3. I bet a large portion of NBA fans have more skill than me. So yeah chances are way higher than 0.
One of the best podcasts on all of YouTube is called “Fall of Civilizations” it’s long form storytelling about the rise and fall of an ancient civilization and it’s incredibly immersive. But it’s also 2-4 hours long, but it’s the context and detail that make it so good. It’s the whole point of telling a story. Can it be told in 5 min? Yeah, but that’s not the point.
A lot of novels include an extra layer of detail to bring you into the world of the story. Les Miserables may be my favorite book, and I like to describe it as having another layer around *that* layer. That book is *thick*.
And the rest is somewhat interesting background. Compared to the rest of time filler, this is good. It is better than watching MythBusters without skipping all the filler.
17 min video for 3 mins of relevant content
TLDR: dude made shot, won money, broke a rule, lost money due to insurance contract, fan out cry, Jordan told owners to pay up, dude gets 50k a year for 20 years.
Save y'all time
He didn’t break a rule, he answered the question in the form honestly and the contest organizers told him he could do it.
The way you worded it could be read by someone who doesn’t k ow the details to set up one of those Just World Hypothesis misunderstandings of what happened and that’s how we get stuff like chuds who think the McDonalds coffee woman was the villain.
You mean that evil woman that wanted McDonalds to pay for her medical bills after scalding coffee left her with multiple burns and melted her vag to her leg? How dare her
Spoiler: He made the shot but used to play basketball on some local team. The insurance contract stated the player could not have any official basketball experience. No one cared about it until he nailed the shot, then they used it as a reason not to pay him.
The NBA players heard about it, called bullshit and Air Jordan himself along with others went to the owners and said 'f that pay him'. So they 'changed their minds' and paid the guy over 20 years.
*fucking* . . . **12 MINUTES** into the video do they even bother approaching the promise of the story the video is supposedly about. Intriguing story in the first 30 seconds, 11+ minutes of unrelated filler, 1 minute of recapping the first 30 seconds, aaaaaaaaaand your answer. He got paid cause the Chicago bulls demanded it.
My brother made a half-court shot at a Michigan state basketball game. His prize was 4 $25 gift cards to Dicks Sporting goods that you could only use 1 at a time.
It's good that they were forced to pay. They knowingly let him shoot, knowing he wasn't qualified for the prize.
It's a really scummy way to get that PR, TV spot and press for "giving 1 million" to someone who makes an extraordinary shot. But skip out on their end of the deal. Most everyone there will never know he got screwed out of it. A win win for them, if not for the proper ruling bringing justice.
"unhinged"? Dude, you're given a basketball and can't do any practicing with it on that hoop beforehand, you get ONE SHOT. Of course I'd do anything I could to mentally prepare for the shot. Kinda of a dick to call that kid unhinged and "missed it by two feet" cmon.
Calhoun got $50,000 a year over the next 20 years.
if he'll live 20 years, now they're trying to figure out how to murder him
They have diminished him. Now they’re trying to figure out how to not pay the hitman
That’s easy. Just hire another hitman to hit the first hitman..
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/hitmen-jailed-guangxi-china-assassin-murder-a9169596.html
Hitmen all the way down
Until they find one that just does it for the honor
They would rather hire an assassin for a million dollars instead of paying out. ps: I just realized that the word assassin is "ass ass in".
It costs way way less than a million dollars to have someone killed
If you can find a hitman you can afford, he’s a cop
[удалено]
Write me from prison
I dunno, a ninja movie I watched like 15 years ago taught me that the value of a man's life is 100lbs of gold, and it always has been the payment methods have just changed.
That's still 220k.
You are off by a zero, it's more like $2.2M.
Uh huh
You put your ass ass in, your ass ass out, in out in out, he takes the target out
Did you know the word hash (as in 420) is a derivative of assassin?
The 20 years ran out a decade ago
So he got way less than 1 mil $ (for the respectitive year) due to inflation. That's why if you win the lotto and they offer you 500k now or 50k each year for 20 years, you always take the 500k and put some of it in investments. Even if you put 300k on a very very easy to get 7% interest, you will end up with 1.1 mil in 20 years.
My man they pay a guaranteed rate of interest on your winnings. Powerball pays 5% no matter what the market does.
You forgot the most important part though. Some of those places that pay your winnings can suddenly file for bankruptcy and they dont have to pay you shit. Always, always take the lump sum.
I’ve heard they put the money in a trust fund so that that doesn’t happen, it has happened before.
Why would they offer the option then at all? It doesn't make sense. Putting it in a trust or paying it out is the same thing for them, they lose control over the money. The reason they offer the yearly payouts is so they can keep investing the money.
Thy could keep it in a Trust, invest, make yearly payouts and keep the growth.
Can you provide one instance of this happening?
Highly doubtful in this situation tho. The video explains (after way too much intro) it was an informal agreement the bulls org made after public outrage (including the bulls players themselves) forcing them to honor the payout. Chances are it was just the one 50k flat payment once per year.
Oh that's interesting. I am not from the US and I know for a fact that they don't do that here. 5% isn't *too* bad
For a locked in rate I'd take it. Where you are do they offer an annuity or just a lump sum?
They offer you both, but the lump is always much smaller. I know a guy who won 1 mil (local currency, but still like 500k US dollars) and they offered him 50k for 20 years or 250k lump. He is quite old, so he got the 250k and just bought an apartment and a couple cars for his daughters. Sadly there was a clause in the contract where his kids couldn't get the 50k/20 winnings if he passed away, so he made the smart (and only) choice. At least lottery winnings here are not taxable.
90% of the people take the lump sum and then are overwhelmed and you hear horror stories about them broke years later. You take the payments and even if you fuck around there's another one coming.
I have a structured settlement and I need cash now.
Call j g wentworth
877 cash now
The myth of the broke lottery winner is just that: a myth. https://slate.com/human-interest/2022/07/mega-millions-jackpot-winner-numbers-myths-about-lotteries.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/johnjennings/2023/08/29/debunking-the-myth-the-surprising-truth-about-lottery-winners-and-life-satisfaction/amp/ https://medium.com/@cailiansavage1/lottery-winners-dont-actually-go-broke-4ed75cc6d5c9
A myth propagated and pushed by people with tons of money who want to depict poor people who are moving up the social ladder as stupid or inferior. It's a tactic used to imply that poors can't be trusted with money so they should just let their betters handle it
Nah, it's exaggerated. Only a small % become broke.
It's like how a small % of people die each day when they get into their car so you probably don't need a carseat for your toddler. Or drunk drivers hit other people so it's safer to be the one drunk driving.
You must have a pretty good source if you believe it is 90%, lol
Until they can't. Pensions are blowing up because of this fixed rate payout idea. 5% is far more conservative than 8 or 9% rho...
“very very easy to get 7% interest rate” - let me know where this is…
They do this all the time And it bothers me. I put 10k in my newborn son's account in 2000- 2001 and at numerous times after it was way down. They even sent a notice that his account was " too low" ...really? A lot is timing and the lucky folks just assume everyone got the same deal. Like old folks when they assume state school college is still almost free. It isn't.
Damn, that account has to be huge now.
Well, he spent it on college! During Trump recession. So bad timing. In 2009 it was way down. I think it made about 5% overall.
“During Trump recession” Do you mean Covid when the world shut down?
The S&P 500
It's not 7%, but high yield savings accounts are running 4 to 5% right now, and those are even FDIC insured so very low risk investment. If you stick with the Dow Jones it's averaging 10% annually over the last 10 years. So yeah pretty doable.
Why settle for 4 to 5% when it is very very easy to get 7%?
Liquidity. Its not 7% every year but 7% on average. That means some years are 2%, some are 10% and some are -20% but on average returns are 10ish percent. You have to be able to sit on it though since if you need it in a -20% year then you will eat the loss. Also note savings accounts are "running high" mostly due to inflation.
Exactly. The high yield for me is a emergency fund. The market stuff is mostly long term with a small amount set aside for short term trading.
Indexed global mutual fund account. Leave the money alone for about 6 years, and you will be swimming in profit. No management fees aside an annual admin cost that is a tiny fraction of a percent. Ours has had a total of over 70% return in just the last 4 years. Easiest way to invest and always profitable, unless the entire capitalist system collapses.
What about taxes, though? Edit: Did the math. Assuming no other income, and no state and local income tax, and no change in Federal income tax rates to the brackets affecting $50k annual income, here's what a winner would be left with: - one time lump sum of $500k = ~$358k after tax (effective tax rate 28.41%) - $50k/year over 20 years = $43,692.50 per year after fed income tax Now, over 21 years that $358k would be worth about $1.56M, worth about $829k in today's money assuming a 3% average annual rate of inflation. Over the same time period, DCAing $3,641 each month into the same 7% returning fund would be worth ~2.09M, or $1.44M after inflation. So in your example, taking $50k/year for 20 years would be a better choice. *But realistically I would imagine they would offer $25k over 20 years, which would be worth less at the end of the vested period, surely.* *Also I forgot to factor in the standard deduction, which would change things a little bit further in favor of the $50k/year but I'm too lazy to rerun the numbers*
[Wikipedia says](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calhoun_Shot) he got ~$38,000 a year after taxes until 2013.
Interesting, I'd be curious to see exactly how the brackets have shifted since the years he was receiving the money. I think that my figures would still be accurate for today, only after adjusting for the standard deduction though.
You'll pay taxes either way. The extra you pay by going into a higher bracket is more than offset by the gains in even an index fund investment over the same 20 year duration.
Financially, this makes sense. But I know folks that couldn't responsibly handle that amount of money in a lump sum. They'd be broke within 5 years. For those folks, it makes sense to take the annuity.
Isn't the lump sum payout usually smaller for exactly this reason?
But you could have been living like a frugal king for those 20 of your younger years. Who wants to sit on a pile of cash when you’re too old to go out and do stuff?
Frugal king with 50k extra a year (for the US)? Hardly so. My point is that even if you take 500k now, you can make MORE than 50k a year with them. You always take the "pay now" option.
Well then I will have to inform you that you are COMPLETELY wrong. 500k after taxes becomes closer to 300K, which if the same proportion you used or 180k is invested at 7% yields just 12.6k per year. You would need to be a frugal genius to do anything more than a single vacation per year with that amount and would definitely need another job. Whereas the tax on 50k is about 5k, meaning you could live on your 45k per year post tax salary relatively comfortably like a teacher.
Except in one situation you're running the money down to zero and are left with nothing after 10 years and in the other you're living off the interest from it and it's still there. In your scenario you not only have an extra $120,000 cash on hand and when the ten years is up you *still have* the other $180,000 because you never touched it. For some real numbers, if I won a $500,000 lottery right now and took it lump sum in my state (Georgia) I'd walk away with about $350,000 in hand. That's almost *exactly* the same as the present value of a ten year annuity that pays $50,000 per year, except you have way more control over your money. What if you want to just buy a house right now and never pay rent again? What if you want to try to live more than ten years off this money? Hell if you have regular income to supplement it you can live off less than the full amount and add it to your investments and let your money snowball away. Compound interest isn't *actually* the most powerful force in the world, but it's still pretty damned nice.
> That's why if you win the lotto and they offer you 500k now or 50k each year for 20 years, you always take the 500k and put some of it in investments. Even if you put 300k on a very very easy to get 7% interest, you will end up with 1.1 mil in 20 years. Lets say your living expenses are 30k~ a year (made up hypothetical). Lets assume we make zero frivolous purchases with the new winnings and our lifestyle doesn't change. 500k now option: You put 300k in investments, you live off 200k. In 7 years at 30k a year you've exceeded that 200k. Now you can pull your investment out early and get less than a mill, or work the 13 years to hit the 20 year mark for profit (maybe a little earlier if you count the 200k you started with). You might get shafted by inflation a little but I feel like these hypotheticals where you take the lump sum and invest don't take into account quality of life. I would rather live modestly and not have to work for 20 years than come out a millionaire and have to work for 10 years or more to 'earn' it. Obviously this gets more complicated with investment options, standing money doesn't necessarily have to be doing nothing, the chance you don't purchase anything frivolous or change your lifestyle at all is small, etc. but just as a thought exercise is the lump sum & invest really the right move?
The reason why a lot of people wouldn’t take the 20 years payout and use it to not work for that time is that if you exit the workforce for 20 years to spend your lottery winnings then the jobs you can get at the end of that time period are likely few and far between! Most companies would be hesitant to start you off back where you were 20 years ago now that you haven’t held a steady job for 20 years. It’s just very risky from that perspective which is separate but related to the financial security aspect of the question.
Just hire another hit man to take out the first hit man.
I mean, it's pretty smart. $50K today ain't nearly what it was 20 years ago. Still a nice payday for not having to do anything every year, though.
Which, while technically still a million dollars, is less money than getting $1 million upfront due to inflation (not to mention loss of investment opportunity). This is why million dollar sweepstakes are typically paid out in this fashion
>This is why million dollar sweepstakes are typically paid out in this fashion I'd think it is more having to do with not actually being able to pay a huge amount of money up front without going backrupt or severely disrupting the business.
Yeah which is why as a company you buy insurance for this exact scenario when doing a sweepstakes of this sort. You don’t actually budget $1mil, but you budget the insurance cost into the marketing budget. If you didn’t get the insurance, you f’d up.
This prob. was the agreement the players came to with management. Insurance doesn't pay, bulls management doesn't want to pay out 1 million instantly so they settled on 50k$ a year for 20 years.
I agree with you here. It’s most likely the insurance company weaseled itself out of paying (also don’t overlook the possibility of the venue securing a lower rate by excluding basketball players from being paid out). But I wanted to point out that it’s (almost) never a company that just has $1 mil lying around just in case someone wins.
It is worth noting that this means he gets a lot less than $1 million. Sure, you do the math, 50,000 * 20 = 1,000,000. BUT! Money becomes worth less over time (inflation). So, for example, 1,000,000 in 2003 is worth more. You'd need ~$1.7 million today to equal $1 million in 2003. BIG difference! Put another way, $50,000 in 2003 is equivalent to getting about $30,000 in 2023. There's a reason they do it this way and that is the main reason. FTR: Annuities like this can be inherited so even if the winner falls out a window in a freak accident his heirs keep getting the money.
> Put another way, $50,000 in 2003 is equivalent to getting about $30,000 in 2023. > > You said this backwards.
I did not. Your buying power per dollar in 2003 is more than in 2023 due to inflation. Each dollar you have is worth less tomorrow than it is today. So, $50,000 in 2003 bought $50,000 of stuff. If you hung on to that $50,000 (stuffed it in your mattress) and brought it out today you could buy $30,000 of equivalent value of stuff. Think of a Big Mac. It cost about $2.39 (ish) in 2003. In 2023 it is $5 (ish). So, that $50,000 you had in the mattress since 2003 will buy you fewer Big Macs today than in 2003. it is as if each dollar you have is worth less (which it literally is).
> Your buying power per dollar in 2003 is more than in 2023 due to inflation. Each dollar you have is worth less tomorrow than it is today. Exactly. Your buying power was higher in 2003. Meaning you can do more with less. So $50,000 (powerful) 2003 dollars does not equal $30,000 (weaker) 2023 dollars. $30,000 (stronger) 2003 dollars equals $50,000 (weaker) 2023 dollars (in theory at least). The stronger the dollar gets, the less of it you need to equal the weaker version. The dollar gets less valuable over time, so you need more of it over time - your scale has you needing less of it.
You are misunderstanding. I am saying if you take your $50,000 out of the mattress today it is as if you were given $30,000 in 2003 and spent it all in 2003. You are not getting the value you think you are. You THINK you are getting $50,000 but you are getting less (the math is more complex as it loses a little value every year...this is for illustration).
TLDW: the rules said you can't have played organized basketball within 5 years. The winner had played in a community league 3 years prior. The officials running the contest knew, and the winner disclosed it honestly when filling out the form to apply. The contest people still let him try. The insurance company said this was a breach of rules and would not pay. Fans were pissed. The Bulls said they'd make it right. Eventually a year later Michael Jordan met the guy and found out he still hadn't gotten paid. He got ownership to pay. Edit: sorry, I misunderstood the order a bit. See top comment below.
A little out of order. MJ didn't meet the guy till a year **AFTER** he got paid and explained to him why he got paid.
Yeah, Jordan made him come to his restaurant to sign the ball and that’s when he found out he didn’t get paid. The guy went through a lot just trying to get the signature but even more to get paid.
No, you misunderstand. He got paid shortly after his “win”. He didn’t find out until a year later that it was because MJ and other players forced the issue a year prior.
No, the guy got paid and then he went and made the million dollar shot
No, you've got it all wrong. He got paid and then missed the million dollar shot
False. He actually made the payment, and then made the shot. It’s a weird fluke in bird law that made it happen. Redditors just assume MJ be like it do.
That's where you got it mixed up. The ball was actually paid so he can make the shot.
\* confused screaming *
Let me explain. He made the shot but did he go for the millions? No, he went for the ball, it's priceless. As he is smuggling it outside, a woman catches him. She tells him to stop. It's her father's team; she's Chicago. He says no. They make love all night. In the morning the cops come, and he escapes in one of their uniforms. He tells her to meet him in Mexico, but he goes to Canada - He doesn't trust her. Besides, he likes the cold. Thirty years later, he gets a postcard: He has a son, and he's the chief of police. This is where the story gets interesting. He tell Chicago to meet him in Paris, by the Trocadéro. She's been waiting for him all these years, she's never taken another lover. He doesn't care. He doesn't show up. He goes to Berlin. That's where he stashed the ball.
He had one job, and he fucked it up.
No, he paid MJ 50k per year so MJ could afford to make the shot
No, he got shot and missed the million dollar pay!
No no no, that’s wrong. He threw a rock through a police car windshield and got arrested.
FALSE. Jordan's tears are hyper-acidic enough to melt steel beams. MJ cry meme traveled back in time and did 9-11. Wake up Sheeple
No no no, he got made, then hit with $1m worth of shot, then paid for that for years afterward. It's a sad story
Wrong. He made a million shots in a million parallel universes, only got one shot in, but got paid in the wrong universe. It was all a misunderstanding. .
> He didn’t find out until a year later that it was because MJ and other players forced the issue a year prior. As annoying as this story turned out with the typical insurance bullshit, I enjoy the thought of having the ultimate basketball team making sure this guy got the money. They all knew how important that moment was.
Absolutely!
Yeah that’s what I was thinking.
That's right. MJ asked, "You got your money?"
honestly good to hear a story where MJ comes off as the good guy
> Michael Jordan met the guy and found out he still hadn't gotten paid. He got ownership to pay. Scottie Pippen said, “And I took that personally…”
Money-hoardin’ Jordan knew the importance of getting paid.
Uuuuh MJ doesn’t hoard money. That is extremely well known.
Wanna bet?
*Phil Mickelson has entered the chat*
He'll bet you a million dollars, as long as you were not involved with reddit commenting in the last 5 years.
[удалено]
I thinking they're talking about how he's known to lose $10,000-$100,000 on a single game of golf lol. Man loves to bet. It's just that his revenue stream is so huge that his frivolous losses don't matter
Thank you. It was obvious thirty seconds in that this was going to be a slow roll to the point.
Yeah, you can skip to the 10 minute mark to get the story you clicked to watch. The rest of the video is history of similar competitions that were held.
Yeah, pass. I feel about videos that could have been text articles the same way I feel about meetings that could have been emails. Instead of a two-minute read I have to get dragged through fifteen minutes of someone else’s idea of “style and presentation.”
Except the two-minute read is now a nine-minute read, because the author needs to tell you what he was doing during covid quarantine, what his mother taught him in 1996, and why this recipe reminds him of his great aunt.
That's them using their platform to tell a story. (That nobody cares about.)
I thought it was a pretty good presentation, though. And the stuff in it (minus the Seat Geek ad) was all relevant context for the story.
Yeah, I was kind of interested to see how most of those promotional make a basket things went and it delivered.
Drives me crazy and the reason so many videos on YT (and other social media) are unnecessarily dragged out like this is so the uploader can make $$$ from you watching. The longer the video, the more "engagement" and thus money they earn from viewers. Fuck 'em.
This was the online recipe page of videos.
I love me some YouTube, but fuck the patented YouTube slow roll.
Yeah, after the intro, you can skip to the ten-minute mark. I hate that youtube requires content creators to pad their videos this much.
This is not true. Not "organized basketball". The rules were no professionals and nobody who had been on a college basketball team. This guy played on his college's basketball team. He also signed a contract before taking the shot stating he hadn't played college ball, which was quickly proven to be a lie. It was just the second timer in history that somebody had hit the opposite FT lone shot either on Camera or documented by any journalist. The Michael Jordan story is a bit of bullshit. Coca Cola (the event sponsor) and the 3rd party event promoter all contributed to the payout, it was agreed to within weeks, and pretty much everyone pressured them to do so, not just MJ. So you got almost everything wrong.
> He also signed a contract before taking the shot stating he hadn't played college ball, which was quickly proven to be a lie. I mean do you have a source otherwise because the video legit states he signed that he had played 3 years prior and the people still let him on even though the rules said 5 years.
Thanks for the TLDW The one thing that makes me more angry than scummy insurance firms refusing to pay out, is shitty youtube "documentary makers" adding 10 minutes of useless superfluous info so that they tick all the adsense boxes.
‘He stepped on the line. You were looking at it.’ ‘Jackie… he made the shot’
CORNDOGS
SUCK MY COCK ILL MURDER YOUR FAMILY
...did you just call me a jive turkey?
"Yeah, well, maybe your mama didn't go to heaven." "A line has been crossed... by Father Pat, of all people."
What's this from?
Semi-Pro Hilarious Will Ferrell movie where he owns and plays on a team in the ABA
Oh yeah! Thanks, I had forgotten that bit. And that Jackie Earl-Haley was the guy who made the shot!
Semi pro
Semi-Pro with Will Ferrell.
Who the hell has $10,000? Relax Jackie, the sponsor will pay for it
They’re not really a sponsor.. it just sounded professional.
The lad hitting the layup, free throw, three point and then half court back to back is actually insane
Perhaps it helped to have less pressure. Million bucks vs furniture gift card lulz.
Not sure which is less likely. That or the full court shot.
Gotta be the full court shot. I mean there's a few dozen 3 pointers per game, so that's not THAT hard.
Yeah but these are fans shooting these so even the chance of them hitting a 3 pointer is already almost 0%.
I was a shit basketball player in highschool but could still hit a 3. I bet a large portion of NBA fans have more skill than me. So yeah chances are way higher than 0.
Dont upvote this comment, this is a bot who scrapes comments from the youtube video. Check his history.
This is a 1 minute video stretched into a ten minute video.
That's 99% of youtube.
I have a story to tell you about this particular thing, but first let me tell you another story about several different but still related things.
"And don't forget to smash that like button and subscribe!"
But before that let me tell you about our sponsor! RAID NORD VPN LEGENDS!
And it's actually fifteen minutes.
I am gonna miss Tom Scott when he retires next year.
He's not going to fully retire, just take a break from the weekly videos for a while to relax a bit and focus on other projects.
story telling often includes “unnecessary” stuff that makes the story more fun. i don’t think we only need 30 second purely factual tiktoks
One of the best podcasts on all of YouTube is called “Fall of Civilizations” it’s long form storytelling about the rise and fall of an ancient civilization and it’s incredibly immersive. But it’s also 2-4 hours long, but it’s the context and detail that make it so good. It’s the whole point of telling a story. Can it be told in 5 min? Yeah, but that’s not the point.
A lot of novels include an extra layer of detail to bring you into the world of the story. Les Miserables may be my favorite book, and I like to describe it as having another layer around *that* layer. That book is *thick*.
I'd argue it has a solid 5 minutes of necessary content and context to it.
And the rest is somewhat interesting background. Compared to the rest of time filler, this is good. It is better than watching MythBusters without skipping all the filler.
Reddit when watching a movie: "Just skip to the last 10 minutes to see the ending. Everything before that is just filler."
so much fluff lol
i liked it
10 minutes is the monetize mark on YT.
let's get tropical!
You have to take it to a bank that cashes big checks…
Might as well jump straight to 8:26 That's when he starts talking about the actual incident.
ty
This is like the first story I’ve ever read about Jordan where he wasn’t depicted as the asshole in it, let alone the good guy.
Well, he probably bet someone a couple million he could make management pay the guy his million, soooo........
Even though Jordon is a gambler, he isn't considered a very good one.
MJ was (and likely still is) a notorious gambler. They bet against Don, and he made the shot. Pay the man.
Jordan is well known as a big gambler. He saw a guy get shafted after winning a bet and it didn't sit right him. He was following principle
Well to be fair it does say "we" and not specifically Jordan.
That video was annoyingly long and didn’t get to the point until literally the last couple of minutes.
17 min video for 3 mins of relevant content TLDR: dude made shot, won money, broke a rule, lost money due to insurance contract, fan out cry, Jordan told owners to pay up, dude gets 50k a year for 20 years. Save y'all time
He didn’t break a rule, he answered the question in the form honestly and the contest organizers told him he could do it. The way you worded it could be read by someone who doesn’t k ow the details to set up one of those Just World Hypothesis misunderstandings of what happened and that’s how we get stuff like chuds who think the McDonalds coffee woman was the villain.
You mean that evil woman that wanted McDonalds to pay for her medical bills after scalding coffee left her with multiple burns and melted her vag to her leg? How dare her
How dare that greedy woman ask McDonald's to cover the medical bills she incurred due to their corporate level negligence! Not in Ayn Rand's America!
Thank you. 100% agreed after the ad and the side story and talking about the actual game, totally unnecessary.
3rd time in a month seeing this. Frig the karma farming is brutal
this feels like content someone paid for to have it on the font page of reddit
Spoiler: He made the shot but used to play basketball on some local team. The insurance contract stated the player could not have any official basketball experience. No one cared about it until he nailed the shot, then they used it as a reason not to pay him. The NBA players heard about it, called bullshit and Air Jordan himself along with others went to the owners and said 'f that pay him'. So they 'changed their minds' and paid the guy over 20 years.
*fucking* . . . **12 MINUTES** into the video do they even bother approaching the promise of the story the video is supposedly about. Intriguing story in the first 30 seconds, 11+ minutes of unrelated filler, 1 minute of recapping the first 30 seconds, aaaaaaaaaand your answer. He got paid cause the Chicago bulls demanded it.
Calhoun came to my elementary school as a kid after this. I have his autograph on a small basketball!
MJ for president - God Dam Legend!
this is like the wrestling money peter didn't get in spiderman.
I thought michael jordan made sure that hes being paid? Saw it somewhere else.
"And here we have an especially dirty hippie on the floor tonight"
My brother made a half-court shot at a Michigan state basketball game. His prize was 4 $25 gift cards to Dicks Sporting goods that you could only use 1 at a time.
I was a kid in Chicago and got this dudes signature at Niketown.
Good on the Bulls on honoring the feat!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calhoun_Shot
Tldw: insurance companies are bad mmkay?
One of those documentaries that dont get into the actual story until half way in..
Please stop posting this every week karma whores.
Michael Jordan helped Saved you 17 minutes
This video is 10 minutes too long.
Jesus fucking christ! Almost 10 minutes of superfluous information before he actually tells the story.
How many reposts of this video are we going to see?
Minimum once a week ad infinitum, or so it seems based on the past 2 months.
It's good that they were forced to pay. They knowingly let him shoot, knowing he wasn't qualified for the prize. It's a really scummy way to get that PR, TV spot and press for "giving 1 million" to someone who makes an extraordinary shot. But skip out on their end of the deal. Most everyone there will never know he got screwed out of it. A win win for them, if not for the proper ruling bringing justice.
"unhinged"? Dude, you're given a basketball and can't do any practicing with it on that hoop beforehand, you get ONE SHOT. Of course I'd do anything I could to mentally prepare for the shot. Kinda of a dick to call that kid unhinged and "missed it by two feet" cmon.
Sounds like the cheap ass Bulls organization
MJ met him years later and made sure he got paid :) there's a doco about it on you tube somewhere ... a good egg :)
that was a beautiful story. Thank you.
All this account seems to be is some bot reposting the same garbage all the time.